Bad reporting from the Wall Street Journal on the Fla. U.S. Senate race

The funniest thing about this stort is: 1) The WSJ thinks what I have to say about Crist v. Rubio matters despite suggesting it doesn’t. 2) Despite thinking it matters (or doesn’t), they failed to uphold even the slightest sense of journalistic integrity by calling me and asking me what happened. If they had, I would have informed them that Marco Rubio called me at 5:00 the day the story of my “un-endorsement” was reported on-line by most major papers in the sunshine state. In said conversation Marco apologized for what he claimed was his “uninentionally” terse reply. 3) The WSJ reporter also makes an assertion that Rubio’s one word reponse of “ok” to my concerns was intentional and that it “squashed any brouhaha about [my] dis-endorsement.” This is also a bunch of B.S. While I was surprised by all the coverage, if Marco’s reply “squashed any brouhaha,” why was it reported in the Tampa Tribune, St. Pete Times, Orlando Sentinal, other Fla. papers, and now the Wall Street Journal?

Is it any wonder the public doesn’t trust the media?

By Chris Ingram

Someone sent me this story from the Wall Street Journal (about the Fla. U.S. Senate race and my role in it) this evening and I had to laugh.

The funniest thing about this story is: 1) The WSJ thinks what I have to say about Crist v. Rubio matters despite suggesting it doesn’t. 2) Despite thinking it matters (or doesn’t), they failed to uphold even the slightest sense of journalistic integrity by not calling me and asking me what happened. If they had, I would have informed them that Marco Rubio called me at 5:00 p.m. the day the story of my “un-endorsement” was reported on-line by most major papers in the sunshine state. In said conversation, Marco apologized for what he claimed was his “uninentional” terse reply. 3) The WSJ reporter also makes an assertion that Rubio’s one word reponse of “ok” to my concerns was intentional and that it “squashed any brouhaha about [my] dis-endorsement.” This is also a bunch of B.S. While I was surprised by all the coverage, if Marco’s reply “squashed any brouhaha,” why was it reported in the Tampa Tribune, St. Pete Times, Orlando Sentinal, other Fla. papers, and now the Wall Street Journal?

My point here folks is, you’ve got to be careful anylizing what you read. Reporters are human, they get it wrong sometimes. And yes, some of them have an agenda…though I’m not sure what Ms. Finley’s was/is. I tend to think she’s probably just lazy.

Charlie Crist launches his first negative TV ad against Marco Rubio.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist obviously doesn’t plan to go down without a fight.

This week, in his first negative TV ad, he blasted Marco Rubio as a “registered lobbyist” whose “income skyrocketed while his power increased.” He accused Mr. Rubio of using “Republican political donations on his lavish lifestyle,” of “violating the law” and failing to properly disclose questionable use of campaign funds. In particular, the ad cites a St. Petersburg Times report that Mr. Rubio charged personal expenses like a $134 haircut on party credit cards.

Mr. Rubio’s response to the attacks? Two 15-second ads appearing in the same time slots as Mr. Crist’s ad, citing an Associated Press article calling Mr. Crist’s attacks on him “over the top” and punctuated by the now-infamous image of Mr. Crist and President Obama embracing at a stimulus rally last year.

Mr. Rubio has ridden the “hug” from a 30-point deficit last summer to his current prohibitive lead, so especially ironic was the Crist ad’s mocking invocation of Mr. Rubio’s reputation as the “Republican Obama” — a phrase used by John Judis of the liberal New Republic magazine about Mr. Rubio’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference last month: “His trick consisted partly of echoing the great themes of conservative America . . . But he breathed life into these weather-beaten notions by infusing them with his own life story, which proved their worthiness and their applicability. His is the classic story of the American dream fulfilled.”

Even the St. Pete Times dismisses the charge that Mr. Rubio made a career as a “lobbyist,” noting that he only briefly and long ago represented clients before the Miami-Dade zoning board. And Mr. Rubio says his records show he personally reimbursed $16,000 of his American Express expenses. Nevertheless, the credit card controversy lost Mr. Rubio the support of Florida GOP activist Chris Ingram, previously a vocal critic of Mr. Crist. Mr. Ingram requested back his $600 campaign contribution, saying “the double-talk from you and your campaign spokesman lead me to believe you are no different than most politicians.” The Rubio campaign’s one word response “Ok” squashed any brouhaha about the dis-endorsement.

But Mr. Crist also wants to argue that Mr. Rubio isn’t as conservative as he claims, and by extension Mr. Crist isn’t as liberal as he seems. But with a 32-point deficit to overcome, Mr. Crist is unlikely to wrestle away the mantle of conservative hero in time for the August GOP primary. Ironically, the Crist ad does lay the groundwork for Mr. Rubio’s own inevitable shift to the center in search of independent and Democratic votes in the fall.